Questions for creationists

[slammajamma]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your basic and essential premise is this:

If God exists, there must be evidence of His existence that can be known via the senses and relativistic logic.

You are defining what existence is first, then making a condition upon which to have proof of that existence.

That is your right, your choice, your belief system.

However, it begins with an assumption that cannot be proven without the use of the senses and relativistic logic, and as such is an assumption without a means to falsify that assumption.

Prove your first premise.

Interesting challenge, ART.

This statement combined with your earlier statements about revelation shows your belief that God is truly revealed only to us from within, in our consciousness.

Of course, this is a doubter's paradise.

You remind me of that English film, "The Ruling Class", in which Peter O'Toole plays an eccentric man who beleives he is God. When asked by a psychiatrist why he thinks he is God, his answer is, "Every time I pray, I find that I am talking to myself"

 

[ARogueTrader]

Were human beings nothing but logical like a computer, it still would beg the question:

How do we know we are running the right software program?

However, since man is more than a computer and more than pure logical functioning, some suggest there is value in deeper thought than just senses, simple logic and relativistic conclusions.

Those who are philosophical will question their very first assumptions.

Those who are seekers will invest themselves in finding the answers for themselves when it comes to the question of what ultimate existence really is.

This statement combined with your earlier statements about revelation shows your belief that God is truly revealed only to us from within, in our consciousness.

Everything is ultimately revealed within. Everything must exist in our own consciousness for us to know it, for without consciousness we cannot know.

Consciousness is therefore the foundation of all knowledge, in the same way a movie screen is the foundation of the movie projected onto it.

If the movie screen is distorted, the projected movie on that screen will be seen to be distorted too. Unless you have a perfect movie screen, you cannot have a perfect movie.

So, why is there not a study of our own human consciousness first before we reach all these conclusions about external reality?

Getting back to the computer analogy, even if we were computers running the correct software, how would we know our "hardware" was working properly?

What is the objective check on our hardware and software?

What is ironic is that if we are in fact "evolving and changing" and lacking a finished and complete design, how could we ever have certainty that our mental computer was providing accuracy and reflective of reality?

Knowledge would therefore change as we "evolved" as the computer and software would also be "evolving" and providing changing knowledge and reality.

However, if we do have a Creator, and if there is in fact a design and a proper functioning of human beings, and if we could know God we could then know the truth of our own humanity beyond evolutionary guessing.

The bottom line point is that in reality for human beings, there is no certainty for human beings outside of the concept of an absolute God who could elevate us to His level of Absoluteness.

Theists at least admit to a practice of faith and that their "certainty" is on that basis and belief that they are seeking an Absolute condition.

The atheists apparently do not take that same position, as they seem to be certain of their conclusions yet claim they are not employing faith yet at the same time are not questioning their own instrument of knowing.

They have faith in senses and relativistic logic. Just another guess of what ultimate reality is. No better or worse in my opinion, just a guess.

Quote from slammajamma:

Interesting challenge, ART.

This statement combined with your earlier statements about revelation shows your belief that God is truly revealed only to us from within, in our consciousness.

Of course, this is a doubter's paradise.

You remind me of that English film, "The Ruling Class", in which Peter O'Toole plays an eccentric man who beleives he is God. When asked by a psychiatrist why he thinks he is God, his answer is, "Every time I pray, I find that I am talking to myself"

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your basic and essential premise is this:

Well thanks a bunch for deciding what my basic and essential premise is. It seems you prefer to define my essential premise for me, rather than ask me what it might be.

If God exists, there must be evidence of His existence that can be known via the senses and relativistic logic.

I said that nowhere in my post to Malestrom. It appears you have decided what my premise is by saying something which I never said. Not much of a meaningful or logical debate going on here then.

I asked Malestrom just HOW would one PROVE without 'logic and science'??

However, it begins with an assumption that cannot be proven without the use of the senses and relativistic logic, and as such is an assumption without a means to falsify that assumption.

But it's your assumption not mine. That's probably why it would have no means to falsify itself.... You thought of it!

Prove your first premise.

You want me to prove something you said I said although I didn't say it!?

Yep, sounds like the quintessential ART method of argument.


In respect to this where you say .... ".....proven without the use of the senses and relativistic logic"

Just do that for me....

PROVE something.... without 'the use of the senses and relativistic logic'.

But before you start please keep in mind, simply believing something exists is not proof that it exists.

It may be suffiecent proof to you, but that is what I was referring to as a personal thing and by no means stands up as proof.

 

[ARogueTrader]

If I was wrong, please then provide your first assumption.

Is believing in something a proof that it exists?

No, I doubt it, but I really don't know. So much depends on a conclusion of what existence is first.

If I take a first assumption that existence is only provable via senses and relativistic logic, then belief without such confirmation that comes through the senses or relativistic logic would not constitute proof.

So if YOU define proof that way, that will be YOUR proof.

Is it absolute proof? Could you be wrong in your criteria and definition of proof?

Is your definition of proof not just a concoction of human mind, and not reflective of proof independent of the human mind?

Where is the objective test of your instruments of proof?

Quote from stu:

Well thanks a bunch for deciding what my basic and essential premise is. It seems you prefer to define my essential premise for me, rather than ask me what it might be. I said that nowhere in my post to Malestrom. It appears you have decided what my premise is by saying something which I never said. Not much of a meaningful or logical debate going on here then.

I asked Malestrom just HOW would one PROVE without 'logic and science'??But it's your assumption not mine. That's probably why it would have no means to falsify itself.... You thought of it!

You want me to prove something you said I said although I didn't say it!?

Yep, sounds like the quintessential ART method of argument.


In respect to this where you say .... ".....proven without the use of the senses and relativistic logic"

Just do that for me....

PROVE something.... without 'the use of the senses and relativistic logic'.

But before you start please keep in mind, simply believing something exists is not proof that it exists.

It may be suffiecent proof to you, but that is what I was referring to as a personal thing and by no means stands up as proof.

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

If I was wrong, please then provide your first assumption.

Just why do I need to provide an assumption?

Is believing in something a proof that it exists?

No, I doubt it, but I really don't know. So much depends on a conclusion of what existence is first.

Then before defining what existence is (or is not), you might do better to first define what constitutes proof.

If believing were proof that something exists, then anything exists . Under such circumstances, anything has the same value or meaning, or non value or non meaning as the next thing.... existence of God is ONLY a belief and therefore has as little proof as do Pink Pixies.

If I take a first assumption that existence is only provable via senses and relativistic logic, then belief without such confirmation that comes through the senses or relativistic logic would not constitute proof.

You cannot even prove that you can first make the assumption without the senses and relativistic logic !!... can you??

If you can, please do so.

So if YOU define proof that way, that will be YOUR proof.

If you can define proof any other way then please do so. Until you do, apparently it is not my proof. Apparently it is the only method available to provide proof of anything.

Is it absolute proof? Could you be wrong in your criteria and definition of proof?

Proof 'via senses and relativistic logic' is the only method (a scientific method perhaps would be more appropriate description) of establishing proof.

Without 'senses and relativistic logic' there is no reason or basis for proof of anything. Please explain how or why there is proof of something where the senses and relativistic logic are absent.

Or is it that there simply could be. Then by the same proof there simply could be Pink Pixies.

Where is the objective test of your instruments of proof?

Please explain how the absence of the senses and relativistic logic would provide equivalent or better instruments for objective testing ?? .

But how will you do that without your senses and some relativistic logic.??!!

 

[ARogueTrader]

Just why do I need to provide an assumption? Then before defining what existence is (or is not), you might do better to first define what constitutes proof.

You don't "need" to. I asked a simple question of you and you are refusing a simple answer.

Inquiring minds might to know why.

Define proof? The proof is in the pudding.

If believing were proof that something exists, then anything exists . Under such circumstances, anything has the same value or meaning, or non value or non meaning as the next thing.... existence of God is ONLY a belief and therefore has as little proof as do Pink Pixies.

I don't know if Pink Pixies exist or not. Do you?

You don't know that existence of God is ONLY a belief, you believe that is the case, buy you don't know as you don't have proof of God not existing.


You cannot even prove that you can first make the assumption without the senses and relativistic logic !!... can you??

Completely circular, which is my point.

Logic makes no assumptions whatsoever. Logic is like math, just a set of rules. Math itself doesn't make calculations, human beings do. A man can do the math correctly, but if he started with the wrong set of numbers...the wrong answer results none the less.

So, with relativistic logic there is a starting point, or a first assumption.

What is yours? Is your first assumption that senses and relativistic logic are reflective of what is ultimately real?

You do have a concept of ultimately real, right?

If you can, please do so.If you can define proof any other way then please do so. Until you do, apparently it is not my proof. Apparently it is the only method available to provide proof of anything.Proof 'via senses and relativistic logic' is the only method (a scientific method perhaps would be more appropriate description) of establishing proof.

Again circular reasoning. An airtight case.

If we ASSUME that proof comes only through sense and relativistic logic, and if we ASSUME that our senses and use of relativistic logic is perfect, then we could ASSUME that any proof based on relativistic logic and senses without flaw.

However, where is the proof that senses are not flawed, where is the proof the relativistic logic is not flawed, where is the proof that human mind is not in a state of delusion to begin with that needs faith to overcome the flawed state?

If 99 people agree an act is insane, is the 1 person who doesn't agree insane?

What is the absolute criteria that you are working with?

I don't see it at all, I see only a circular and relativistic platform.

Without 'senses and relativistic logic' there is no reason or basis for proof of anything. Please explain how or why there is proof of something where the senses and relativistic logic are absent.

Again circular statements, as reason is defined as what comes through senses and relativistic logic...and that is all filtered through senses and relativistic logic?

Clearly you can see that you are building a foundation on something which is an assumption, not a position that could be verified externally and objectively.

You assume, then draw conclusion on that basis. Even the fact that we have the power of assumption is not a proof that the process of assumption on the basis of intellect and senses is the RIGHT way to approach God.

Or is it that there simply could be. Then by the same proof there simply could be Pink Pixies.Please explain how the absence of the senses and relativistic logic would provide equivalent or better instruments for objective testing ?? .

Testing? Again circular. We setup a test based on what the sense and relativistic logic decide is the right test, but what is the proof that sense and relativistic logic are the right method to choose the test?

This all boils down to the assumption that reason is the right way to know the reality of God versus faith in God.

There is no proof that reason is the right or wrong way, apart from the circular reasoning you employ.

If it works for you, fine. However, it is based on assumption, not fact.

But how will you do that without your senses and some relativistic logic.??!!

Faith.

 

[cdbern]

Quote from Rearden Metal:

The Theist claim that man was created from dirt is news to you?

Genesis 2:7

" then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. "

The above is King James, but I highly doubt you'll find any version without this fairy tale in Genesis 2:7.

Now that my computer is operational again I'll answer that. No it isn't "news" to me.

As you quoted, God formed man from dust. Your interpretation of dust is that its dirt. You've taken literary license. Those who translated the Bible probably took literary as well.

The Bible is correct INSOFAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY. Undoubtedly there were flaws in its translation, just as there is a flaw is translating dust to mean dirt.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Luckily, I happen to to speak fluent Hebrew. I can assure you that Genesis 2:7 uses the Hebrew word 'affar' which can ONLY mean dust or dirt. The Jewish commentator Rashi, who's views are accepted by all streams of Judaism digs the hole even deeper for you guys by explaining litterally and technically how God "formed low-flying clouds filled with water to moisten the dust, from which Adam was created."

NO WIGGLE ROOM.

 

[cdbern]

So are you Jewish then? Or did you study Hebrew for a love of the language?

 

[Rearden Metal]

Modern Orthodox Judaism was shoved down my throat mercilessly as a child & teenager. At age eleven my parents moved the whole family to Israel, where I was forced to completely switch languages. At age 18, I was drafted and spent 3 years in a 110 degree hellhole on the Egyptian border babysitting Palestinian terrorists.

Baseless primitive superstitions sapped most of the pleasure from my childhood and made my young adult life a living hell.

Thinking for myself and becoming an atheist was my second biggest achievement ever.

I do conceed that my number one biggest acheivment ever (getting rich in my mid-twenties) may not have happened if my early years hadn't been so rough. So maybe it was all worth it in my case...but I'm still filled with great pity and sadness whenever I see young Jewish-Orthodox children and think of the sensory deprivation and powerful brainwashing they're forced to endure.